[ih] Question re rate of growth of the Arpanet

[the keyboard of geoff goodfellow]

yours truly could not imagine the "shared resources" ARPANET at 2.4 being
"successful" at anything more than a "glorified" ASCII Terminal
Concentrator for a bunch of 110 baud/10 cps Teletypes with maybe an
occasional something or other like a 300 baud/30 cps "printer" terminal !

can't imagine that bandwidth being "shared" for  FTP or practically
anything else...

maybe John Shoch or other PARC/Alto alumni can chime in here, as yours
truly recalls that the link between the Palo Alto and El Segundo networks
of Alto's was a "mere" 9.6 circuit that was pretty much jammed up with
traffic, but at least was useable for more than that Chat (the PUP
equivalent to NCP's TELNET) sessions?

then there was UUCP... can anyone chime in what the "minimum" acceptable
bit rate for that was?  anything less than Bell 202 at 1.2 or Racal Vadic
at 2.4?

geoff

On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 12:33 PM John Day via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> The benefits of checking the sources.  As I said, I thought it was 9.6 too
> until I dug into it.  ;-)
>
> 2.4 would have been *really* slow!!
>
> > On Apr 21, 2025, at 14:55, vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > John is right about 2.4 KB/s original plan. The 1967 ACM event where
> Roger met Larry changed things.
> >
> > V
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2025, 14:36 John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> wrote:
> >> Yes, I thought so too.  My quoting 2.4 was based on the paper Roberts
> gave at the Gatlinburg conference.
> >>
> >> Ah, so the government had a special tariff, so it wasn’t quite as
> expensive as I thought. Still far greater than a campus network, but
> better.  ;-)
> >>
> >> > On Apr 21, 2025, at 14:32, Steve Crocker via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Geoff,
> >> >
> >> > To add a bit more, I believe Larry Roberts was originally thinking in
> terms
> >> > of 9600 baud lines.  However, he discovered the U.S. Government had
> access
> >> > to a special Bell tariff for these 50 kb/s circuits.  As Vint said,
> the 50
> >> > kb/s was implemented using twelve voice grade circuits and a Western
> >> > Electric series 303A modem.  Bottom line, Larry found this item in the
> >> > government catalog that provided this bandwidth and was within his
> budget.
> >> >
> >> > Steve
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 2:11 PM Vint Cerf <vint at google.com <mailto:
> vint at google.com>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Best you could do with 12 3KHz bonded channels on a Bell 303 modem
> >> >>
> >> >> V
> >> >>
> >> >> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> >> >> Vint Cerf
> >> >> Google, LLC
> >> >> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> >> >> Reston, VA 20190
> >> >> +1 (571) 213 1346
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> until further notice
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Apr 21, 2025, 14:09 the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via
> >> >> Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> steve, can you elucidate any history with respect to how/why the
> speed of
> >> >>> 50 kb/s was chosen for the ARPANET lines?  were there great speeds
> >> >>> available then?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> yours truly kinda (perhaps mistakenly) recalls these 50 kb/s
> "wideband
> >> >>> circuits of the day" were primarily used for linking tv broadcast
> >> >>> affiliate
> >> >>> stations to/with their motherships (cbs, nbc, abc, ...)?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> geoff
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 7:26 AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history <
> >> >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Thanks for the pointer to RFC 597.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> As I looked at it, an aspect I hadn't considered before came to
> mind.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Installation of an IMP required provisioning 50 kb/s lines to two
> or
> >> >>> three
> >> >>>> other points.  In the early days, we installed roughly a new IMP
> once a
> >> >>>> month.  (The lead time for ordering 50 kb/s lines from AT&T was
> NINE
> >> >>>> months.)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Once an IMP was installed, new hosts could be added to the IMP as
> >> >>> quickly
> >> >>>> as the site could build or obtain the host-IMP interface and write
> or
> >> >>>> obtain the software for their operating system.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> If anyone has the dates for each of the hosts, it would be
> interesting
> >> >>> to
> >> >>>> compare the growth of IMPs vs growth of hosts.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Steve
> >> >>>> --
> >> >>>> Internet-history mailing list
> >> >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> >> >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com <mailto:Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com>
> >> >>> living as The Truth is True
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> Internet-history mailing list
> >> >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> >> >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Sent by a Verified
> >> >
> >> > sender
> >> > --
> >> > Internet-history mailing list
> >> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> >> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >>
> >> --
> >> Internet-history mailing list
> >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
>

-- 
Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com
living as The Truth is True